The IPC in Order PO-3116 held that, despite the agreement being negotiated between the third party and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, certain articles in the agreement met the supplied test, because, if disclosed, the exempt information could be inferred. The IPC also accepted that certain portions of the agreement represented underlying non-negotiated information, or information that was not susceptible to change. For example, a portion of the agreement referred to certain fixed information about the structure of the third party, which was not subject to change.
In Order PO-3149, the IPC held that names of subcontractors contained within a negotiated agreement were considered to have met the supplied portion of the section 17(1) exemption of FIPPA. However, the harms component of the test was ultimately not satisfied for the exemption to apply.